"And _this Jesus_!" They spat on the ground to relieve the intensity of
their contempt. "Who was He? A peasant! a Galilean! Nazareth!" Nazareth
was put in as a sort of superlative degree of contempt. Of course, they
could easily have found out about the lineage of Jesus. In the best
meaning of the word, Jesus was an aristocrat. Apart from its
philological derivation that word means one who traces his lineage back
through a worthy line for a long way, and so one who has the noble
traits of such lineage. In the best meaning of the word Jesus was an
_aristocrat_. His line traced back without slip or break to the great
house of David, and that meant clear back to Adam. The records were all
there, carefully preserved, indisputable. They could easily have found
this out.

I recall talking one day in London with a gentle lady of an old, titled
Scottish family, an earnest Christian, trained in the Latin Church. In
the course of the conversation she remarked, "Of course, Jesus was a
_peasant_." And I replied as gently as I could so as not to seem to be
arguing, "Of course, He was _not_ a peasant. He chose to _live_ as a
peasant, for a great strong purpose. But He was an aristocrat in blood.
His family line traced directly back through the noblest families clear
to the beginning. No one living had a longer unbroken lineage. And that
is the very essence of aristocracy."

In some circles, they count much, or most, on old families. In certain
cities of our own country, east and south, this is reckoned as the
hall-mark of highest distinction. When one goes across the water to
England and the Continent, he finds the old families of America are
rather young affairs. And as he pushes on into the East, some of the old
families of Europe sometimes seem fairly recent. I remember in the
Orient running across a family where the father had been a Shinto